| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Murphy: Obviously, the report is disturbing. Equally, it is important to carry on with the process of trying to achieve a stable and proper democracy in Northern Ireland—based on the operation of devolved institutions, together with the peace process. We must do so with all the political parties in Northern Ireland. We always knew that, after the signing of the Good Friday agreement, it would be a difficult road, as has proved to be the case.
Today we are dealing specifically with a report on paramilitary activity, and the hon. Gentleman asked two questions. One was about the ceasefire; it is interesting to note what the IMC says about it. It underlines
"the importance of moving the debate on from one about ceasefires and breaches of ceasefires to one about the totality of illegal paramilitary activities. Though many fewer are murdered, many more are being shot or assaulted."
The legal definition of a ceasefire remains the same, and we do not judge that there has been a breach, but that should not in any way suggest that what we are dealing with today is any less significant, because the reality of the impact on people's lives in Northern Ireland is, as the information in the report shows, far greater. The conclusions on the effect of so-called punishment paramilitary shootings on the individuals assaulted and their families are devastating.
As to the talks, we came to the conclusion that we had not really made sufficient preparation to conduct them in the next week or two; if we did conduct them, they would not be meaningful talks. The talks likely to occur over the next couple of weeks will not be as intensive or high-powered as we originally envisaged, but we should certainly continue to examine areas considered in the review. We have examined strand 1, but not strands 2 or 3 of the agreement. The Northern Ireland political parties, in common with those in Great Britain, are moving towards a period of election activity, which will inevitably have an impact on what happens over the next couple of weeks. However, we will return to intensive talks as we move forward into the summer. In the meantime, I will talk to all the parties. There is a formal meeting tomorrow of the British and Irish Governments, who will be able to consider in greater detail the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP):
It is right that the report reminds us that it is now 10 years
20 Apr 2004 : Column 178
since the first IRA ceasefire and six years since the Good Friday agreement was signed. It provides confirmation, if we needed it, that we are still in the stranglehold of paramilitary violence and organised crime. It comes as no surprise to many of us, particularly those who live in Northern Ireland, that the report is as stark as it is.
I would like the Secretary of State to clarify one matter. The commission was charged with assessing whether the political leadership of those connected with paramilitary organisations were complicit in, condoning, supporting or allowing violence and organised crime. If the report specifically fulfils the mandate from Parliament to make that assessment—like many others, I look forward to reading it—and finds that that is so, the type of petty-cash penalties specified are risible and will be an embarrassment not just to the Government but to the political process.
My poor mathematical mind has worked out that the type of organised heist of cigarettes that took place in my constituency at Christmas would pay those penalties for 22 years. I ask the Secretary of State and the Irish Government to consider the matter sincerely in that light. If the Independent Monitoring Commission makes such an assessment, we should not waste time on tokenism. To the richest party in western Europe, those penalties mean nothing. They are like levying fines on a rich footballer—nothing more, nothing less. I view this as tokenism—well meaning and for the right reasons, which will perhaps have a peripheral effect. The reality is that until the two Governments, Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party are able to come to terms about the continuation of violence, we will be working at the edges, not getting to the heart of the problem.
I am always loth to give anyone advice, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but after 30-odd years of watching attempts to solve the problem, I say sincerely let us not waste time on scratching at the surface. We have wasted too much time already, and there is precious little to waste.
Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration about the sanctions, but I repeat two points that I made in the statement. First, we are putting into effect the recommendation of the commission itself, and we made it clear that the Government would do whatever the IMC recommended. Secondly, I know that the House would agree with the important point that, if the Assembly were up and running, it would have been a different picture. Recommendations would have been made up to and possibly including exclusion from office, but that does not apply because the Assembly is not sitting.
My hon. Friend expresses a view that most people in Northern Ireland know: these activities are going on. However, it has now been formally acknowledged by an independent and international body that those activities are indeed going on and disrupting the peace process.
Part 7 of the report is entitled "Leadership of Paramilitary Groups" and I shall quote a few sentences from it because they relate to my hon. Friend's point. Paragraph 7.5 states:
"We recognise that there might not have been a PIRA ceasefire in the first place without influence from the leadership of Sinn Fein. By the same token Sinn Fein must bear its responsibility for the continuation by PIRA of illegal paramilitary activity and must recognise the implications of being in this position."
"While we are satisfied that the Progressive Unionist Party and others exerted a positive influence in achieving the loyalist ceasefires we believe it has not sufficiently discharged its responsibility to exert all possible influence to prevent illegal activities on the part of the UVF and the RHC."
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): This report is very important. I thank the Secretary of State for what he said about my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and Mr. Alex Attwood. We all know in Northern Ireland that public and elected figures run the gauntlet and we know not what a day may bring forth. It is right that the House take note of that at all times.
What worries me—it evidently also worries the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who takes a different view from me of the present troubles—is the problem of delaying, delaying and delaying. We should not have had to wait for this report. The police had done their work and discovered who was behind one of the incidents that took place. Instead of the police dealing with law and order in a proper way, the matter was shelved off to the commission. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government wanted it shelved off even longer? Those people acted speedily on their own initiative because the Government set them a date a bit later in the year. Why did they do so? Do the Government not want to face up to those facts?
The good thing about the report is that it deals with loyalist violence—so-called—and with IRA violence. I suggest that Members look at page 22 to find out exactly where we are today with that paramilitarism and its awful aggression.
Something else worries me. Can sanctions be taken against terrorists by introducing a murder tax? That is exactly what the Government are trying to do—introduce a murder tax. The Secretary of State even said that the report's suggestions in that regard were appropriate. I do not think they are appropriate at all. If a man is murdered, do we tell the people who are weeping, "Oh aye, but we are taking back the money that we have already paid out"? What sort of nonsense is that? Are we to play soullessly with the blood of innocent people? This is not the time for doing sums and taking back money that the Government have already paid. Those people are losing nothing—in fact, we heard from the southern Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that they are bringing in millions from other sources. Surely, the time has come when we should face up to the fact that there can be no murder tax.
There is only one remedy: if people do not keep to the rules that govern the talks, they cannot be in the talks. If I did not keep the rules, the Secretary of State would have me out on my ear. I remember that, because I had not signed a paper at the beginning of the talks, it was moved that I be put out of the room immediately—but not so the IRA, not so Sinn Fein. We need proper sanctions. If we cannot have proper sanctions through the Assembly, the Secretary of State must legislate in the House to ensure that those who do not keep to the rules cannot take part in the negotiations. That is the final arbitration.
20 Apr 2004 : Column 180
Until that is done—think of it!—those men can come into this House and strut around these Corridors, yet nothing will be said to them. Why was something not done about that? Does the House condone what those people are doing when it gives them the run of this place? Why was the House not even mentioned in any of the sanctions?
What about the sanctions relating to Stormont? The only appropriate action that the Secretary of State can take is to say, "You are not in the talks". The leader of the official Unionist party made three efforts to bring those people in—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |